Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pawan Bhardwaj vs Union Territory Chandigarh And Others on 3 March, 2025
Author: Mahabir Singh Sindhu
Bench: Mahabir Singh Sindhu
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030180
CRM-M-37576-2023 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
122 CRM-M-37576-2023 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 03.03.2025
Pawan Bhardwaj .....Petitioner
Versus
Union Territory Chandigarh and others .....Respondents
CRM-M-49108-2023 (O&M)
Prem Lal Middha .....Petitioner
Versus
Union Territory Chandigarh and another .....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU
Present: Mr. G.S.Madaan, Advocate for the petitioner
in CRM-M-37576-2023 &
Mr. Pranjal P. Chaudhary, Advocate
for the petitioner in CRM-M-49108-2023.
Mr. Abhinav Gupta, Addl. PP for U.T., Chandigarh.
Mr. Animesh Sharma, Advocate and
Ms. Shuchi Sodhi, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 and 3
in CRM-M-37576-2023 and for respondent No.2
in CRM-M-49108-2023.
****
MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU, J.
This judgment shall dispose off aforementioned two criminal
petitions as common questions of facts and law are involved therein. For
brevity, the facts are taken from CRM-M-37576-2023.
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030180
2. Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') praying for quashing of FIR
No.113 dated 30.08.2022 (P-1), under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and
120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC'), registered at Police
Station Sector 11, Chandigarh, along with all consequential proceedings
arising therefrom qua the petitioners on the basis of compromise dated
31.10.2022 (P-2), entered into between the parties i.e. petitioner as well as
respondent Nos.2 and 3.
3. Allegations are that petitioner(s) induced complainant(s)
Nachattar Kaur Sohi and Darshan Singh Sohi to deliver Rs.1,03,69,000/- for
purchase flat in Mohali; but neither sale deed was executed; nor any flat was
delivered to them.
4. Status report by way of affidavit dated 02.02.2024 of Ms. Niyati
Mittal, DANIPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police (EOW), UT, Chandigarh
on behalf of respondents has been filed and the same is taken on record.
Copy supplied to the other side.
Registry to tag the same at appropriate place.
5. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner in CRM-M-
49108-2023 apprised that in FIR No.523 dated 11.09.2023 registered under
Sections 420 and 120-B of IPC at Police Station Sector 34, Chandigarh,
petitioner Prem Lal Middha in CRM-M-49108-2023 stands acquitted by the
Court vide judgment dated 18.03.2024.
6. Contends that matter has been amicably settled between the
parties, i.e. petitioners as well as respondent Nos.2 & 3; hence FIR in
question as well as consequential proceedings deserve to be quashed qua the
petitioners.
7. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 & 3 in CRM-M-37576-
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030180
2023 and learned counsel for respondent No.2 in CRM-M-49108-2023 has
also acknowledged the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner(s).
8. Still further, learned State Counsel, on instructions from the
police officer present, is not averse in case the above FIR along with
consequential proceedings are quashed and set aside on the basis of the
compromise entered into between the parties i.e. petitioner(s) as well as
respondent(s).
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper-
book.
10. A Co-ordinate Bench, on 21.08.2024, passed the following
order:-
"Since both the aforesaid petitions have been filed on
behalf of the petitioner(s) seeking quashing of FIR (Annexure P-1)
and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom on the
basis of a compromise having been effected between the parties,
this Court deems appropriate that statements of the parties be
recorded to ascertain the factum of compromise.
List again on 10.2.2025.
The parties are directed to move an application before the
trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate concerned for getting their
statements recorded qua the factum of compromise. As and when
any such application is moved and put up before the trial
Court/Illaqa Magistrate, the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate shall
consider the said application and do the needful for recording the
statements of the parties qua the factum of the compromise, on any
convenient date. After recording the statements of all the affected
parties, and upon getting requisite information from Investigating
Officer, the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate shall submit its report on
the basis of the statements so recorded, broadly on the following
aspects:
(i) Whether there is any other accused other than the petitioner(s),
arrayed in this petition.
(ii) Whether there is any other complainant or affected/aggrieved
party other than the respondents, arrayed in the petition.
(iii) Whether any accused has been declared Proclaimed Offender?
(iv) Whether the compromise in question is found to be a valid
compromise and has been effected without there being any kind of
influence or coercion?
It shall be open to the complainant/Nachhatter Kaur Sohi to get
her statement recorded through her nominated Special Power of
Attorney or through video conferencing subject to convenience of
the Court.
The report be submitted before this Court on or before the next
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030180
date.
A copy of this order be placed on the file of connected case."
11. In terms of aforesaid order, statements of both the parties were
recorded and a comprehensive report dated 04.02.2025 has been received
from learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandigarh. For reference, the
operative part of report reads as under:-
1 Whether there is any accused As per statement of IO, there are
other than the petitioner(s), only two accused person namely
arrayed in petition? Pawan Bhardwaj & Prem Lal Midha
in the present case.
Whether there is any other No.
2 complainant or
affected/aggrieved party
other than the respondents,
arrayed in the petition?
3 Whether any accused has As per the statement of IO, accused
been declared proclaimed persons have never been declared
offender? proclaimed offender.
4 Whether the compromise is Yes, the compromise so arrived at
question is found to be a between the parties is genuine,
valid compromise and has voluntary and without any coercion
been effected without there or undue influence.
being any kind of influence or
coercion?
A perusal of the aforesaid extract clearly reveals that matter has
been compromised by both sides with their free consent, voluntarily and
without any coercion or undue influence. Even before this Court also, there
is no objection by either side against each other.
12. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab,
(2012) 10 SCC 303, has held as under:-
"61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be
summarised thus : the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal
proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is
distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for
compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power
is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised
in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz. : (i) to secure the
ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. In what
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030180
cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be
exercised where the offender and the victim have settled their dispute
would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no
category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the
High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime.
Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder,
rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or
victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are
not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, any
compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences
under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences
committed by public servants while working in that capacity, etc.; cannot
provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such
offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and
predominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes
of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial,
mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences
arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes
where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties
have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High
Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the
compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of
conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case
would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme
injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite
full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other
words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or
contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding
or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of
process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and
the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate
that the criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above
question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its
jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."
13. In view of above discussion, this Court is fully convinced that
the offence is entirely personal in nature and does not involve public funds.
Thus, quashing of the FIR in question along with consequential proceedings,
on the basis of compromise would bring peace and harmony to secure the
ends of justice.
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030180
14. Consequently, present petitions are allowed; aforesaid FIR
along with all consequential proceedings resulting therefrom are quashed
qua the petitioner(s).
15. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of the connected
case.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.
03.03.2025 (MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU)
Rajeev (rvs) JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
6 of 6
